CAT/C/66/D/771/2016
visit, the complainant confirmed that the Rwandan authorities had treated him correctly and
that they had facilitated visits by family members, as well as access to legal counsel and
monitoring by the International Commission of Jurists. Additionally, the complainant
confirmed that his initial fear of being tortured or otherwise ill-treated had proved to be illfounded. For that reason, the State party requested the Committee to discontinue the
complaint or, alternatively, to declare it inadmissible for failure to substantiate the claims
for purposes of admissibility.
Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations
5.1
On 12 January 2017, the complainant provided his comments on the State party’s
observations on the admissibility of the complaint. He argues that his application to the
European Court of Human Rights was limited to requesting interim measures, and that he
did not include a request to determine the complaint on the merits. He notes that, on 8 July
2016, the Court dismissed the request for interim measures in two lines, stating “the Court
(the duty judge) decided not to indicate to the Government of the Netherlands, under rule
39 of the Rules of the Court, the interim measure you are seeking. Therefore, the Court will
not prevent the applicant’s removal”. In three subsequent paragraphs, the Court then
declared the application inadmissible. The Court’s decision fails to specify the grounds on
which the dismissal was based. It only states that “the conditions of admissibility provided
for in articles 34 and 35 of the Convention were not fulfilled”. The complainant argues that
without any proper explanation from the Court the dismissal could have been based on
procedural grounds.
5.2
As to the State party’s submission that the complaint should be declared
inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies, the complainant argues that he was
not required to lodge an appeal in cassation before the Supreme Court in order to exhaust
all available domestic remedies, as a cassation appeal does not have suspensive effect. At
the time he submitted his complaint before the Committee his extradition was imminent. So
even if an appeal had been granted, he would have been extradited by the time the Supreme
Court rendered its decision.
5.3
On 24 February 2017, the complainant submitted his comments on the State party’s
request for discontinuance and further observations on the admissibility of the complaint.
The complainant notes that his concerns about his safety in the Rwandan justice system and
the detention centre are far from resolved. He also notes that, while it is true that he has
thus far been treated correctly, the situation in Rwanda remains unpredictable. He adds that
his concern was never that he would be subjected to inhuman treatment from the moment of
his arrival. The Rwandan authorities are aware that the proceedings are monitored by the
Netherlands authorities. His concern is what will happen when his detention or
imprisonment is no longer monitored. He submits that the risk of being subjected to
inhuman treatment at a later stage, after the imposition of a sentence, is still as real as it was
prior to his extradition to Rwanda. Referring to a 2016 report by the Netherlands, he claims
that there is no guarantee that genocide suspects, tried under the Transfer Law, can escape
the ill-treatment for which Rwandan prisons are notorious. 1
5.4
The complainant submits that his rights are already at risk of being violated. He
claims that there is lack of clarity about the monitoring agreement, including what aspects
of the proceedings will be monitored and with what frequency, who the monitors are to
report to and what potential consequences, if any, could follow from the monitoring reports.
He notes that he was offered the assistance of counsel immediately upon his arrival.
However, he claims that the counsel tried to force him to plead guilty and that it was very
difficult to have the counsel replaced. He also claims that the evidence so far is insufficient
to proceed to trial and claims that, accordingly, it is far from clear that the proceedings
against him will be conducted fairly.
5.5
The complainant notes that it is correct that he was entitled to receive visitors and
make phone calls to family in the Netherlands. However, recently he has been moved from
1
4
The Netherlands, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, “Thematisch ambtsbericht over mensenrechten en
justitie in Rwanda”, 18 August 2016.